Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 126
    fafotfafot Posts: 17member
    I never read more stupid article than this one. Worked with radars and other RF radiating machines. This article was probably written by a person that read books and never experience RF radiation in his life.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 42 of 126
    awhawh Posts: 9member
    Radon-laden - Osama's surfer brother...
  • Reply 43 of 126
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,487administrator
    fafot said:
    I never read more stupid article than this one. Worked with radars and other RF radiating machines. This article was probably written by a person that read books and never experience RF radiation in his life.
    Super wrong assumption, which had you actually read the article or comments you’d know.
    edited May 2018 StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 44 of 126
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,487administrator
    Mr Wuerthele,

    A great topic for sure!

    There is no overwhelming evidence for or against and it is common knowledge and clear as day that on the effects of RF exposure the science is still out. 

    It is important for a discussion such as this here, to have good information and not pompous statements. To that effect please peruse following links to a reputable publication suitable to this discussion:


    wozwoz said:
    Some starter reading material:

    Science is reproducible, and demonstrable -- and doesn't pitch things like the healing power of crystals. Science isn't absolute, and neither is this article.

    Mercola is not a scientist, he is a demonstrated flam-flam man who pushed an infrared camera on his readers for its supposed health benefits that didn't and don't exist, as well as an assortment of other bogus claims with the express purpose of enriching himself.

    The rest of the links that aren't circular and refer to each other for verification that both of you have posted are of the "if I drink six gallons of water in a short period of time, I'll die" perspective. Sure, I'll go with that. Regarding the cement dust data, there were no limits prior to (rapidly) discovering that it was a possible carcinogen. There are limits for RF exposure, and have been for over 40 years, so we're already well past the discovery phase -- and the studies both of you have posted involve exposure way, way above the legal limits, some by a factor of 10,000 over years.

    Nothing either of you have posted, or anybody else in this thread, for that matter, refutes this statement:

    "Are you in utterly and absolutely zero danger from RF or EMF? Scientifically, there is no way to exclude the possibility absolutely —but you're in some form of danger every minute of every day from one thing or another.

    To put things in perspective, you are in far, far more danger from a lifetime exposure to the ionizing radiation produced by the radon gas in your basement or from getting cancer from sun exposure, than you are from living in the same neighborhood as a cell tower, with twenty Wi-Fi routers surrounding your chair, and actively talking to somebody on 5G on your iPhone with it velcroed to your head for that whole life. And, the risk from the radon-laden basement is relatively low.

    If you're still worried about it, don't sit on your router, and use your speaker function on your iPhone."
    edited May 2018 StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 45 of 126
    My small gated community switched cable/internet providers from Comblast to Hotwire/Fusion which offers Fiber, thank god. Two tinfoil hatted people here were worried that the "Fiber" would give off radiation. Oy.
  • Reply 46 of 126
    ruomaruoma Posts: 3member
    You seriously dissapoint me appleinsider :( This is such a misleading click-baity article.

    Has really no one read the following article? Just google “EU 5G warning”.
    https://ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/


    “(Örebro, Sweden) Sept. 13, 2017

    Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.”

    “With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.”

    “Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.”

    wozwoz
  • Reply 47 of 126
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,487administrator
    ruoma said:
    You seriously dissapoint me appleinsider :( This is such a misleading click-baity article.

    Has really no one read the following article? Just google “EU 5G warning”.
    https://ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/


    “(Örebro, Sweden) Sept. 13, 2017

    Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.”

    “With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.”

    “Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.”

    You disappoint me, random reader, for not reviewing the rest of the peer-reviewed science behind it other than what you personally agree with, and not having read this article either. I've read nearly all of it, for the last 25 years.

    See above forum post for a discussion of the 10,000 times exposure rate more than safety limits issue.
    edited May 2018 StrangeDays
  • Reply 48 of 126
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    ruoma said:
    You seriously dissapoint me appleinsider :( This is such a misleading click-baity article.

    Has really no one read the following article? Just google “EU 5G warning”.
    https://ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/


    “(Örebro, Sweden) Sept. 13, 2017

    Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.”

    “With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.”

    “Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.”


    And yet in this entire thread I still haven't seen a single citation of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating any of these alleged effects - just links to newspaper articles, "health newsletters", petitions and unsupported assertions of harm. 
    StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 49 of 126
    rufworkrufwork Posts: 130member
    I'll just leave this here.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 50 of 126
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,487administrator
    rufwork said:
    I'll just leave this here.
    This is an advertisement. I fail to see the relevancy.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 51 of 126
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,035member
    cgWerks said:
    muppetry said:
    OK - can you cite a peer-reviewed source for the assertion that low-power GHz RF affects gene activation?
    Nope... but can you?
    My point being, has it even been studied to any degree yet? I'm guessing not.

    I'd love to know it isn't harmful, as then I wouldn't be concerned with finding alternatives to decrease the time the phone is against my head, or to embrace Apple's AirPods, etc.

    My objection here, is the positive assertion that it is safe and not to worry... based on several decades-old science (that we now know is incomplete, or even in error in regards to how DNA functions).

    maestro64 said:
    Folks we do not need physics 101 class, anyone who thinks RF waves are going to hurt then, you better build yourself a faraday cage. Even if humans did not create RF devices, everyday you are bombarded with RF waves. The earth is covered in RF so you can not escape it. ...
    Yes, but at much lower levels than if you hold a cell phone on your ear.
    And, if it is hurting us, then wouldn't reducing it be better (even if we can't realistically eliminate it)?
    Due to idiots breaking the law here locally, I sometimes get exposed to 2nd hand smoke. But, then should I just start smoking, because I'm being exposed to it anyway? That doesn't make any sense.
    What is in question here, is precisely whether it does hurt us or not. We don't know yet. The right studies haven't been done.

    The radiation you get hit from standing outside without human generated RF is greater than what you get from your cell phone or WiFi. if you going to die from RF waves, there is nothing you can do about it, your gene failed you that is the only variable here. This is the exact reason the right study can never be done, no one has figure out how to rule out genetic differences which makes one person more receptive to diseases verse someone else. This is call natural selection it is the way of nature to eliminate non desired traits. The problem is no one wants to admit their own body failed them. The only way to do the test it to place people who are genetically exactly the say into a faraday cage and keep them there for their entire life and expose them to controlled RF signal inside the case and see what happens.

    If RF was a serious issue for most people, people would be dropping dead since the first time man walk on the face of the earth.

    Your smoke example it not a good one, since smoke from tobacco is not naturally occurring in our environment, now if you live near a volcano and it puffing smoke every day, then may be your family genes adapted to this and you would not die from smoke. BTW, my dad smoke 2 packs a day from 16 to 56, 40 years and he is 88 today, we also lived between to steel mills which pumped out smoke and soot 24/7 for most of my dads life and my younger years and my entire family are fine no known issues which you can claim to be tracked to toxic smoke, so our genes must have adapted. 
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 52 of 126
    Article writer et al you obviously did not read the articles I referensed; I am still not clear what your credentials are for being steadfast sure you are absolutely and inexplicably right over the current consesus of the scientific community. All I am asking of you is a healthy dose scepticism.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 53 of 126
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,487administrator
    Article writer et al you obviously did not read the articles I referensed; I am still not clear what your credentials are for being steadfast sure you are absolutely and inexplicably right over the current consesus of the scientific community. All I am asking of you is a healthy dose scepticism.
    I did, and I have over time. The letter isn't new -- it's from 2017. I wasn't in need of your references, but thank you for providing them anyway.

    It's great that they want more research, and I welcome it. However, there is precisely zero data that suggests that the current non-occupational exposure limit of less than 100x the safe exposure rate causes any damage whatsoever.

    Did you actually read this article? Or the follow-on comment?

    Where you are mistaken is your opinion is that the current consensus is limited to the 180 signatories to the letter -- that is their consensus, and not indicative of any wider one. It is not proof of anything. 

    Like I said on the first page of the comments, when science changes it's mind, so will I. It has not done so.

    And, regarding the WHO and red meat? Maybe you should read what it says about the prevalence of cancers possibly caused by red meat -- and the lack of a confirmed link -- versus other forms of class one carcinogens before you start talking about it. You may see a relevance, given that the RF risk is compared lower in the this article.


    Specifically, the risk assessments in paragraph 12 and 13.
    edited May 2018 StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 54 of 126
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,492member
    Mr Wuerthele,

    A great topic for sure!

    There is no overwhelming evidence for or against and it is common knowledge and clear as day that on the effects of RF exposure the science is still out. 

    It is important for a discussion such as this here, to have good information and not pompous statements. To that effect please peruse following links to a reputable publication suitable to this discussion:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/2091065-relax-your-phone-probably-isnt-going-to-give-you-cancer/amp/
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn20530-cellphones-are-possibly-carcinogenic/amp/
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn25694-wireless-devices-a-health-threat-during-pregnancy/amp/

    You would do well to err on the side of caution.

    Just remember:
    How long had cement been widely used before it was found that cement dust causes cancer?
    How long had asbestos been used before it was irrefutable that it causes cancer?
    How long did it take WHO to classify cold cuts as a class one carcinogen?

    And many more dependant on technology, understanding and circumstance

    The problem with internet research is you can always find what you want.  Just try looking up vaccines' dangers. 
    StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 55 of 126
    Yep true. Unless you know where to look. Just showed you where. You r welcome.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 56 of 126
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,035member
    For all those who are sighting studies, when you read them think about this.

    I will share something I learned a long time ago being an engineering and trying to determine root cause of a problem and finding the single root cause. When doing studies and research into a problem you change one and only one variable at a time. If you change one things the problem goes away, you're not done you have to then go back and undo that change and see if the problem re-occurs. I seen plenty of times by undoing the change does not always bring back the initial problem. Also making one change and seeing the problem going away does not mean it may not re-occur. When either of these events happen, means you do not find the real cause of the problem.

    This approach works really well in the non-human sciences like electronic or mechanical systems. In the human sciences you can not always undo the change, also it is extremely hard to control change and other variables. What they do in the human science is to use statistics to try and explain what may or may not be happening. Stats immediate tell you they do not have all the data and they are extrapolating.

    cgWerks
  • Reply 57 of 126
    cropr said:
    georgie01 said:
    There are countless examples of people claiming science says some indisputable fact and then later science discovers it was wrong. This is as much a part of science as are the correct things it discovers. People so quickly forget this because they’re so desperate to believe in science, and completely forget ‘science’ is not fact but humanity’s attempt to study fact and therefore prone to continuous and unavoidable errors (some we may never discover).

    I have no idea whether wireless frequencies are unhealthy, but I do know the more we change our environment the more likely it will be unhealthy to us. Structured radio waves designed to carry human information are not natural and we should at least be cautious and not make claims about the science behind it as if that means anything concrete.

    Actually it is absolute science. It comes directly from Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The visible light coming off a wax candle has a much higher chance of giving you cancer than the radio waves transmitted by a cell phone. Simply because the visible light photon is about 10,000 times as energetic as a radio wave photon. Have you ever heard of anyone worried about getting cancer from candles?
    No, but one can gets skin cancer from the too much sunshine,which is basically the same radiation as the candle light. 

    Nevertheless I am not worried.  Radiation from wireless networks is very limited in power: 2 Watt for a mobile phone, 0.1 Watt for wireless router, 80 Watt for a 2G/3G/4G base station.  A microwave emits the same radiation as a mobile phone and is about 1000W.  Luckily it is shielded,  but a leaking microwave might be a much bigger threat to our health.

    Mobile networks were first launched in 1990 in the Scandinavia countries. If there was a real danger, we should see this already in the cancer statistics in these countries, even if there is a long incubation period.
    cropr said:
    georgie01 said:
    There are countless examples of people claiming science says some indisputable fact and then later science discovers it was wrong. This is as much a part of science as are the correct things it discovers. People so quickly forget this because they’re so desperate to believe in science, and completely forget ‘science’ is not fact but humanity’s attempt to study fact and therefore prone to continuous and unavoidable errors (some we may never discover).

    I have no idea whether wireless frequencies are unhealthy, but I do know the more we change our environment the more likely it will be unhealthy to us. Structured radio waves designed to carry human information are not natural and we should at least be cautious and not make claims about the science behind it as if that means anything concrete.

    Actually it is absolute science. It comes directly from Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The visible light coming off a wax candle has a much higher chance of giving you cancer than the radio waves transmitted by a cell phone. Simply because the visible light photon is about 10,000 times as energetic as a radio wave photon. Have you ever heard of anyone worried about getting cancer from candles?
    No, but one can gets skin cancer from the too much sunshine,which is basically the same radiation as the candle light. 

    Nevertheless I am not worried.  Radiation from wireless networks is very limited in power: 2 Watt for a mobile phone, 0.1 Watt for wireless router, 80 Watt for a 2G/3G/4G base station.  A microwave emits the same radiation as a mobile phone and is about 1000W.  Luckily it is shielded,  but a leaking microwave might be a much bigger threat to our health.

    Mobile networks were first launched in 1990 in the Scandinavia countries. If there was a real danger, we should see this already in the cancer statistics in these countries, even if there is a long incubation period.
    The frequency content of the EM radiation that the sun produces is far broader than what a candle can produce. The Sun (a nuclear fusion reactor) generates UV, X-rays, and even higher frequency photons. There is no doubt that those can cause cancer.
  • Reply 58 of 126
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,122member
    cgWerks said:
    dws-2 said:
    I think this article misunderstands science, which is a way of investigating the world, rather than a producer of facts. Science tells us that wireless signals won't likely harm us from ionizing radiation. However, that's not the same thing as wireless signals being harmless. Science can only tell us about things that we've investigated.
    Bingo. A lot of people, even scientists, don't seem to get this. Of course, very few people have ever had a philosophy of science course, either (including scientists).
    I think you probably don’t know any scientists. Great strawman, tho. “Scientists don’t understand science! They’re pushing an agenda!” 
    muppetryfastasleep
  • Reply 59 of 126
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,122member
    cgWerks said:
    muppetry said:
    OK - can you cite a peer-reviewed source for the assertion that low-power GHz RF affects gene activation?
    Nope... but can you?
    My point being, has it even been studied to any degree yet? I'm guessing not.
    You’re making an appeal to ignorance. It’s a logical fallacy. You lose the argument until you can prove your assertion. We don’t have to do it for you, and our not doing so doesn’t bolster your position. It’s still a worthless assertion until you can support it. That’s how logic works in debate. 
    muppetryfastasleep
  • Reply 60 of 126
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,122member
    rufwork said:
    I'll just leave this here.
    Fail of an argument, since it later came out that the tobacco companies actually did know of the health risks but ran ads claiming otherwise anyway. Oops. That’s deception and has nothing to do with our discussion and the science behind it. 
    muppetryfastasleepfafot
Sign In or Register to comment.